Zellification

I speculated maybe a week or two ago that soon enough we were regularly going to start hearing liberal hawk types excoriating Joe Lieberman as the new Zell Miller for saying exactly the kind of things they themselves said during the Years of Hubris. Take, for example, this Jon Chait post:

The Zell Miller-ization of Joe Lieberman Continues
See Larry Kudlow rave.

Kudlow and Lieberman are arguing that Bush is the true heir to the Truman/Kennedy liberal tradition in American foreign policy. As you know, I think this is wrong. But before Lieberman was giving speeches about this, it was the thesis of Lawrence Kaplan's article "Regime Change: Bush, closet liberal" in the March 3, 2003 issue of The New Republic. Indeed, Chait himself defined Bush/McCain/Lieberman-style warmongering as the correct interpretation of the Wilson/Truman legacy while dismissing Lieberman's intra-party critics as "old cranks":

And the most prominent feature of Democratic foreign policy since September 11 is that there isn't much of one. Yes, a couple Democrats--mostly old cranks like Robert Byrd and Hollings--have worried about an open-ended conflict; but others--such as Lieberman--have staked out terrain to Bush's right. The general mood among Democrats in Washington is to lay low on foreign affairs and to confront Bush in the domestic arena. Not only does this mean that McCain's hawkishness would pose little barrier to his nomination; it also presents him with an opportunity to determine what kind of Democratic foreign policy will emerge in the wake of the war on terror. And here McCain has a chance to shape the future of American politics--which, like all things histori cal, can be highly contingent. After all, if Franklin Roosevelt hadn't replaced Henry Wallace with Harry Truman as his vice president, the Democratic Party would not have built its policy of containment in the two decades after World War II. In the post-post Vietnam era now beginning, McCain could redefine the Democratic Party once again as the champion of Wilsonian interventionism.

Now needless to say, I think Lieberman's interpretation of all of this is wrong and a substantial portion of Heads in the Sand is dedicated to laying out why it's wrong and how people came to have this wrongheaded interpretation. But in Lieberman's defense, he's not really "Zellifying" at all -- the things he's saying today were conventional wisdom among center-left elites five years ago and as recently as three years ago Peter Beinart could be found getting a respectful hearing for the idea that MoveOn members should be analogized to Communist Fifth Columnists and purged from progressive politics. It's just that most people who used to hold those views have abandoned them, often sotto voce, leaving Lieberman as an unexpected outlier.

Comments

Indeed, Chait himself defined Bush/McCain/Lieberman-style warmongering ...

You mean the warmongering he (temporarily) abandoned in 2006 in order to get re-elected?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | May 20, 2008 5:19 PM

Wow. Harsh. Nicely done, though.

Posted by Jeff | May 20, 2008 5:33 PM

Kudlow and Lieberman. Now that's a pair. Both often wrong but always certain.

Posted by LFC | May 20, 2008 5:38 PM

Were you not one of these fabled liberal hawks back when it was conventional wisdom ? You have brass ball, i'll give you that ...

So what's in fashion these days, Matthew ?

Posted by anon | May 20, 2008 5:38 PM

Were you not one of these fabled liberal hawks back when it was conventional wisdom ? You have brass ball, i'll give you that ...

So what's in fashion these days, Matthew ?

Posted by anon | May 20, 2008 5:38 PM

So what's in fashion these days, Matthew ?

Not backing losers.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | May 20, 2008 5:42 PM

I thought the conventional wisdom among center-left elites five years ago was to hedge your bets and never come out strongly in favor of one position, lest somebody later accuse you of having adopted the wrong position.

Posted by blah | May 20, 2008 5:42 PM

Indeed, with its constant sneering at arabs over the years, and continuous calls for a hard line against the Palestinians, the TNR constitutes something of a mothership of right-wing views on US Middle East policy, particularly for self-styled 'liberals'.

There was an amusing TNR piece about a year ago where a British journalist went on a cruise with ring-wing nut jobs, and afterwards wrote up their views on Muslims to humourous effect in the New Republic -- all the more amusingly since they sounded very similar to the attitudes TNR and its blogs were pushing even then.

Posted by otto | May 20, 2008 5:55 PM

"Not backing losers."

An excellent position I'm sure.

Posted by anon | May 20, 2008 5:58 PM

I don't really think this is a fair post. Yglesias himself, after all, WAS originally a supporter of Iraq War, like Lieberman, Beinart, and many other liberals. He (and many others) abandoned their support because they could actually see what a disaster the war turned out to be, which led them to question the war, which led them to question their support for the policies and ideologies that lead them to support the war in the first place, etc. etc. The difference between Lieberman and people like Beinart is that Lieberman is an insane lunatic unable to grasp reality or react to events on the ground, while people like Beinart are not. It's a pretty fucking big difference.

Now it's probably true that Lieberman is a case of the party moving left and leaving him stranded, as opposed to him changing his ideas and leaving the party. This is, in fact, like what happened to Zell Miller, and it's a good thing to be applauded (the party moving left), as opposed to IMO pretty disingenuously attacking liberal Iraq War supporters, of which Yglesias himself was one.

Posted by Korha | May 20, 2008 6:11 PM

"It's a pretty fucking big difference."

Yglesias has mentioned his change of heart before, and his constant opposition to the idea of the Iraq invasion, rather than how it was handled, has been pretty powerful. BUT. A whole entry on guys like Beinart -- without mention of his own support? It just comes off as a little dishonest. Not because it's a pack of lies, just tiny lies of omission. Sounds familiar!

Posted by cmon | May 20, 2008 6:22 PM

Now it's probably true that Lieberman is a case of the party moving left and leaving him stranded, as opposed to him changing his ideas and leaving the party. This is, in fact, like what happened to Zell Miller, and it's a good thing to be applauded (the party moving left), as opposed to IMO pretty disingenuously attacking liberal Iraq War supporters, of which Yglesias himself was one.

I think both of these alternatives are wrong, or that the question is poorly formulated, or something. The Democratic Party has moved left, a bit, in the last few years, but I don't think that accounts for what's going on with Lieberman or, even more so, Zell Miller.

There's tons of populist southern Democrats of the Zell Miller school. Many of them can be annoyingly conservative. Almost none of them behaved as Zell Miller did and became raving lunatic ultra right wing Republicans on every issue. Whatever was going on with Zell Miller had mostly to do with Zell Miller, and very little to do with changes in the party.

As to Lieberman, I think it's fairly complicated. Lieberman has always been ultra-hawkish on foreign policy, and more of the party used to be with him on this. What is bizarre about Lieberman is that his ultra-hawkery appears to have swallowed up virtually any commitment he had to any other policies, and that it has grown, if not stronger, then at least more strident, even as many of his own old hawkish allies have moderated their positions.

It's not so much that the party has moved left and left him behind. It's that the party has reassessed the issue in terms of the actual realities, and that Lieberman not only refuses to do so, but has made refusing to do so his entire political raison d'etre.

Posted by John | May 20, 2008 6:35 PM

To me, the Zellification of Lieberman is a reflection not of Lieberman's position on the war, but the insults he routinely hurls at those who disagree with him.

Posted by PaulB | May 20, 2008 6:40 PM

The Zellification of Joe Lieberman is a result of the shortsighted primary challenge waged against him whereby he, as the incumbent senator, was denied renomination as the party's standard-bearer. Hey, I disagree with him entirely on foreign policy, but I think people have serious blinders on if they write about his current stances and ignore the personal history there and the role liberal activists played in his ouster from the party two years ago.

And John writes:
What is bizarre about Lieberman is that his ultra-hawkery appears to have swallowed up virtually any commitment he had to any other policies [...] It's that the party has reassessed the issue in terms of the actual realities, and that Lieberman not only refuses to do so, but has made refusing to do so his entire political raison d'etre.

Well, you note that he had a solid record on a lot of issues outside of foreign policy and that his foreign policy views have now become the totality of what he stands for -- in his view, those foreign policy stances were the totality of his rejection by the party in spite of his record on other areas. So if the party can say "none of those things matter anymore," so his thinking goes, "why shouldn't I?"

Posted by jbryan | May 20, 2008 6:54 PM

Can't write one post without mentioning your book?

Ugly.

Posted by volum | May 20, 2008 7:09 PM

jbryan, there's a fair amount of evidence that the tipping point for Lieberman was not the primary run against him but rather his discovery that he had no support in his 2004 run for president. THIS made him more strident which ultimately tipped off the successful primary challenge from Lamont.

Posted by Tyro | May 20, 2008 7:12 PM

Conventional wisdom?

Al Gore

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | May 20, 2008 7:15 PM

In Matt's defense, I don't remember him ever using the rhetoric that Lieberman and New Republic types and other liberal hawks used against doves in the run-up to the Iraq War. And I think that is the point of this post-- that Lieberman is still basically a liberal hawk, using the same obnoxious rhetoric about the dirty hippies, and the folks criticizing him include a lot of people who used that rhetoric themselves when it was more fashionable.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 20, 2008 7:22 PM

John,

"It's that the party has reassessed the issue in terms of the actual realities, "

Really ? The Democratic Inner Committee did an "agonizing reappraisal" and suddenly found no connection between Osama and Saddam ? There was some brand new intelligence gathered by James Bond in 2004 that allowed them to conclude thus ?

Well, okies ... Reality is grim after all.

Posted by anon | May 20, 2008 7:32 PM

I was thinking about the connection between Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman just the other day and how both totally changed their positions in the last few year. Made me think about this quote from Carville on Zig Zag Zell. Same quote could apply to Lieberman today.

It's a shame they put that poor man out there in the twilight of his career with a bunch of half-truths. Then they put him on TV after, out there making a fool of himself-James Carville, Sept 1. 2004 on Meet the Press

Posted by Political Savage | May 20, 2008 7:50 PM

"Well, you note that he had a solid record on a lot of issues outside of foreign policy and that his foreign policy views have now become the totality of what he stands for -- in his view, those foreign policy stances were the totality of his rejection by the party in spite of his record on other areas. So if the party can say "none of those things matter anymore," so his thinking goes, "why shouldn't I?"

Posted by jbryan | May 20, 2008 6:54 PM"

How long does it take to actually vote for something? A few minutes in all, including making sure you put on your pants and shoes first? Lieberman pretty much goes on TV to push for his agenda these days only if it involves killing Muslims. It reminds me of how one political journalist (I can't remember who) saw Lieberman at a screening of "Behind Enemy Lines" and how Lieberman was getting way too into it, a lot more than everyone else, because he could finally feel like a man.

Posted by Reality Man | May 20, 2008 7:51 PM

Why on earth is Matthew still talking about his book after
James Kirchick comprehensively invalidated it?

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/bc0403jk.html

Precisely who is it who has his head in the sand here?

Posted by a | May 20, 2008 8:56 PM

anonymous critics attacking Yglesias for changing his mind. Isn't the internet wonderful?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 20, 2008 9:32 PM

Still discussing Lieberman as if he represents something other than a sell out America at every turn parasitical fifth columnist zealously urging on a new Holocaust against Muslims - the dumb goyim in battle fatigues abroad and slave wage jumpsuits in the Homeland?

Posted by Trevor | May 20, 2008 9:36 PM

Lieberman is still pretty liberal; witness the global warming bill, he signed on to with McCain.
The parallel is inexact with Scoop Jackson, but recall all the major neocons were at one time Democrats; Abrams, Wolfowitz, Perle, Eugene Rostow, Kemble, Muravchik et al. And they were in
the Truman/Kennedy/Johnson mold on foreign policy.

Posted by narciso | May 20, 2008 10:36 PM

"So what's in fashion these days, Matthew ?"

Iran.

But he can't talk about that.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 20, 2008 11:25 PM

The Zellification of Joe Lieberman is a result of the shortsighted primary challenge waged against him whereby he, as the incumbent senator, was denied renomination as the party's standard-bearer. Hey, I disagree with him entirely on foreign policy, but I think people have serious blinders on if they write about his current stances and ignore the personal history there and the role liberal activists played in his ouster from the party two years ago.

'liberal activists' outsted Lieberman from the party after Lieberman got the most important policy question of the last ten years wrong and appeared to have learned nothing from the experience. God damn democracy and those 'activists' that vote.

Posted by NBarnes | May 20, 2008 11:29 PM

Excellent post, Matt. I really miss the old days when you called out the New Republic on a daily basis, or more! I guess this is why we can't expect the Yglesias Beinart Bloggingheads smackdown, sad to say, since your book shows him to be a fool.

Speaking of the old days, Matt is too modest to say that his temporary support for the war was short-lived and nowhere near the tenor of the New Republic's "everyone left of me is a traitorous fifth columnist." I suppose it's to Matt's credit that he lives his pundit's life as a former war supporter when the facts in his case justify an alternative history, namely that Matt was not to be found braying for blood in March of 2003 unlike so many. So everyone who thinks it's novel or cool or pertinent to throw some former hawkishness in his face whenever he comes out with yet another brilliant post on the politics and/or substance of national security ought to retreat and think before obnoxiously holding forth.

Posted by Marshall | May 20, 2008 11:42 PM

marshall, some pundits were against it, some for it. this post mentioned the latter in a pretttty negative way -- w/o any mention of his own support. just comes off as weird.

Posted by cmon | May 21, 2008 12:39 AM

It reminds me of how one political journalist (I can't remember who) saw Lieberman at a screening of "Behind Enemy Lines" and how Lieberman was getting way too into it, a lot more than everyone else, because he could finally feel like a man.

Jeffrey Goldberg, who you'll find up and to your right.

By the way, can we have a moratorium on hawks misusing JFK's inaugural address? Or at least force them to quote parts like, "So let us begin anew -- remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us."

Otherwise I'm going to have to start repeating what the vaunted JFK's SecState Dean Rusk was saying in 1967. And that would make poor Joe cry.

Posted by tWB | May 21, 2008 12:55 AM

Obviously war is chickenhawk Lieberman's hobby horse and the most important thing for him, otherwise why would he support McCain?

The average of six progressive groups gives Lieberman a 78% rating while giving McCain a 9% rating, one of the worst in the Senate.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/lib_senator_ratings-2007.html

So, other than the war, what does Lieberman have in common with McCain?

Posted by bernarda | May 21, 2008 6:39 AM

Do the Republicans feel the same contempt/disgust/abhorrence toward Chuck Hagel that Democrats feel toward Lieberman?

Posted by baldguy | May 21, 2008 9:21 AM

The Zellification of Joe Lieberman is a result of the shortsighted primary challenge waged against him whereby he, as the incumbent senator, was denied renomination as the party's standard-bearer.

That would be a reasonable statement if you assume Lieberman is entitled to renomination as long as he wants it. If primary voters are entitled to reassess him each term based on his performance (including in this case getting the most important foreign policy question of the last 10 years flat wrong), as I believe is the American system, this sense of entitlement is unjustified. A better man would have accepted the primary defeat and moved on to the next phase of his career. I fear that Lieberman, like Joe Paterno, cannot imagine life without his current job and will journey further and further into a parody of his admirable earlier career.

Posted by stuck in 200 | May 21, 2008 10:16 AM

two things: one, the argument that yglesias changed his mind in a more pure way then say a beinart or berman or walzer is beside the point. the point must always remain: when something bad happens to our country, how will we respond? if you have a liberal intelligentsia who is focused on their own relevance, perceived toughness, and kids' place at sidwell friends, then you will have the same people making the same decisions and the same apologies when for the millionth time us smart people are proven right.

for this matt deserves excoriation and some constant self-flagellation that recognizes how sick and evil washington elite consensus has become. assholes like his colleague goldberg or mcardle get fancy jobs with fucking ponies from matt's boss despite his (and their) utter contempt for their readership--just making shit up to support whatever the kool kidz say is right. and might always seems to make right for these people.

there is nothing good that will come out of someone living in DC or being part of its mainstream elite axis right now. we need a full purge. if the writers who predominated were the digbys, the fosers, the sadlynoites, the american conservative crowd, glenn greenwald et al--if they were the consensus makers--maybe we'd have a chance. instead we get the losers like everyone at TNR or the Atlantic (quit, fallows, quit) who i'm sure look down their nose at writers at like those above.

Posted by robert green | May 21, 2008 11:15 AM

I wonder just how many times anybody at the Denver convention will utter ? ..

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Obviously, Jack Kennedy is so far under the bus that even Oswald can't find him with a scope.

Posted by Neo | May 21, 2008 12:44 PM

Obviously, Jack Kennedy is so far under the bus that even Oswald can't find him with a scope.

The Vietnam War threw Kennedy under the bus. That's what happens when grand rhetoric meets hard reality.

Posted by blah | May 21, 2008 3:44 PM